Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Клейн (Klein) против России» [англ.]

above, § 117).
53. The main argument raised by the applicant under Article 3 is the danger of ill-treatment in Colombia, exacerbated by the nature of the crime that he had been convicted of. The Court observes in this respect that the Committee Against Torture expressed its concerns that measures adopted or being adopted by Colombia against terrorism and illegal armed groups could encourage the practice of torture (see paragraph 31 above). The Court further notes that the evidence before it demonstrates that problems still persist in Colombia in connection with the ill-treatment of detainees.
54. Furthermore, turning to the applicant's personal situation, the Court observes that the applicant fears that he would be singled out as a target of ill-treatment when in Colombia because Vice-President Santos reportedly stated that the applicant should "rot in jail". It considers that, regrettably, it is unable to assess fully the nature of the statement and the connotations it might have had in the original language, i.e. Spanish, since the applicant has not indicated the source of the information concerning the statement in question. However, it appears that the statement expressing the wish of a high-ranking executive official to have a convicted prisoner "rot in jail" may be regarded as an indication that the person in question runs a serious risk of being subjected to ill-treatment while in detention.
55. The Court notes that the Government invoked assurances from the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the effect that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment there (see paragraph 16 above). However, the Court observes that the assurances in question were rather vague and lacked precision; hence, it is bound to question their value. The Court also reiterates that diplomatic assurances are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where reliable sources have reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which are manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention (see Saadi, cited above, §§ 147 - 148).
56. Lastly, the Court will examine the applicant's argument that the Russian authorities did not conduct a serious investigation into possible ill-treatment in the receiving country. It notes in this respect that the applicant informed the Russian courts about poor human-rights situation in Colombia referring to the fact that there had been a lengthy internal armed conflict between State forces and paramilitaries and citing the UN General Assembly's Resolution and the materials of the meeting of the Human Rights Committee (see paragraph 18 above). Furthermore, the applicant brought to the authorities' attention the fact that the Colombian Vice-President had threatened to have him rot in jail. The Supreme Court of Russia limited its assessment of the alleged individualised risk of ill-treatment deriving from Vice-President Santos's statement to a mere observation that the Colombian judiciary were independent from the executive branch of power and thus could not be affected by the statement in question (see paragraph 21 above). The Court is therefore unable to conclude that the Russian authorities duly addressed the applicant's concerns with regard to Article 3 in the domestic extradition proceedings.
57. The Court finds therefore that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, implementation of the extradition order against the applicant would breach Article 3 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

58. The applicant complained that in Colombia he would not have a fair trial, which would amount to a flagrant denial of justice. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against hi

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 14 15 16

0.332 с